Nor can you answer the simple question on whether or not you are changing the topic of the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by suntzu
BTW, I answered your question in post #56. You might not have liked the answer, but it was there.
Printable View
Nor can you answer the simple question on whether or not you are changing the topic of the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by suntzu
BTW, I answered your question in post #56. You might not have liked the answer, but it was there.
Good grief dude. Get a pair LOL (that is a joke and not an insult...I am in a good mood). I don;t give a hoot what you want to discuss like I said in my previous post. Just go ahead, talk about the waether, hockey, (Bruins just beat Toronto). It don;t really matter because you won't answer a simple question. That is your right. It won;t cost me any sleep.Quote:
Originally Posted by farronwolf
This is just almost comical. You would think I was asking for your secret bank code or if you were having an affair. I am just curious how you will deflect the question this time. Why don;t you just say it is none of my business? I am curuous because you are an instructor and it would be interesting to know your personal views on this.
Go ahead...chat it up:danceban:
I should not try to speak for Farronwolf, but what I think he was saying is that without the inclusion of mandatory training inQuote:
Originally Posted by suntzu
the mid-1990s legislative product, a bill to allow for CC would not have passed. Therefore, mandatory training indeed
fulfilled the 3rd mentioned goal-- it promoted CC, as without that having been included in the law there would be no CC in
TX and things would be as they were the first 20 years I lived here. And that, btw, was not good at all. Not quite IL or
Hawaii, but pretty darn close.
Hop, the state was not promoting CC'ing by making it mandatory you have training. Whatever,, look, this has nothing to do with your and Farronwolfs stated position on mandatory training which is is makes folks safe from themselves and others. Why don;t you guys just stick with that. Now, in the abscence of data you are trying to find other reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopyard
Yeah, I am sure the state legislatur said "to promote CC'ing what is better? Pass it with training or pass it without?" Come on, it was a compormise to get something passed. It had zero to do with anyones intention of promoting CC'ing.
BTWL you can speak for him if you want. Do you know what is psotiosn is on if he thinks it should be mandatory? He sure is keeping that a family secret
If you make a decision on what you think is required, you should have a reason for believing that. Whichever you believe, what are you basing that decision on?Quote:
Originally Posted by farronwolf
If there is no data to support your position, why advocate it? Just as 'feel good' legislation? Makes no real difference but sounds good?
If there was a significant difference *I believe* there would be data to support it. It would have arisen to the level of public attention. Just IMO.
The absence of data does not indicate that such laws have no benefit. Frankly there are too many variables in this question for there to be any data-or at least any data that the OP would accept.Quote:
Originally Posted by 9MMare
Absence of "accidents" is hard to prove with data. Just as it is hard to provide data on how many crimes are deterred by open carry. Logic would dictate that, in the case of the situation posed in this thread, any training is better than no training therefore requiring it would be a good thing. Logic would also dictate that criminals would rather not risk their lives by attacking someone who is obviously capable of defending themselves with violence upto and including deadly force.
If there are no accidents, why? Was it the official training mandated, or was it simply because of luck? Was it because of unofficial training received from a parent that carried over or pehaps because the weapons carrier/owner just had some good common sense? Did the accidents in the "no Training States" occur because there was no training or because the carrier was an idiot who would not have followed his training no matter what?
No training will not eliminate ALL threats, but it (Logically) will prevent some, any accident prevented is possibly a life saved. Isn't saving lives worth at least some inconvenience? I would not support mandatory training to own a firearm, I would not support mandatory TACTICAL training for carry, I do however support mandatory SAFETY training before public carry.
I have stated that I believe (opinion of course) that the word "regulated" in the 2A allows for some regulations on keeping and bearing arms. We regulate who can carry (no felons or mentally unstable persons); where a weapon can be carried is also regulated (federal buildings, jails, schools in some areas, court rooms etc); what can be carried (no fully automatic weapons); and how carried (at least by States-permit required to CC, and in some states Permit required to OC, and some no permit at all). Per the Supreme Court of the US in the Heller case the freedoms granted by the Second Ammendment are NOT limitless, prudent regulation is acceptable. Again according to Heller-outright across the board BANS are unconstitutional, however regulations are not because some regulation IS prudent and needed for the good of the public at large.
You asked for it, so it is going to be long.
And Hopyard is correct. I have lived in Texas for 40 years give or take if you count my time while in the Army when I was still a resident here, not my entire life, but most of it. Without the training requirements in the 1995 bill, we would not have any form of legal carry for handguns in this state. That is a fact, not the data you asked for but certainly a fact.
Now, as to my opinion as to whether or not training should be a requirement. I think it should. Not because I am an instructor and make a little money off of it, because it certainly isn't full time job, but because of what I have experienced.
Take a look around this site and see how many people with permits already from states that require training, and see how much bad information is being passed around. The other day I got a private message from a Texas member quoting statute that said carry in church was prohibited because he saw what I posted in the church carry thread. I can only assume that they have their permit already, and had a very crappy instructor or didn't pay attention in class, and certainly didn't read the rest of the statute to see that the following legislative session the 30.06 requirement was put in place to prohibit carry in hospitals, churches, governmental meetings and ammusement parks. One simple example.
Next take what I experience in my classes. I get brand new shooters who come to class with a gun they have never shot. They know nothing about gun safety, or shooting for that matter, don't know which way to put the bullets in the magazine sometimes. I get lots of stuff like my grandpa said if you shoot someone while they are breaking in your home you should drag them into the house, or questions of can I shoot someone for tresspassing. Many people think they know what the laws are, but in reality they only know what someone is telling them that heard it from someone else third hand.
Heck I have even had to appoligize for other instructors who told their first time students that the proficiency requirements on the initial class were only good for 6 months, when clearly the administrative rules say that you have 2 years to submit paperwork and application to the state. The people wasted thier money because after 6 months they thought they had to take another class because they waited too long.
So, yes, I think that people should be required to know the laws of the state if they choose to extend their castle outside their home, vehicle or place of business and into the public in general and have a handgun as a means of defense. I think people need to think about less lethal means of self defense, which prior to the class, many don't even consider.
When I get class evaluations after spending 11-13 hours with a group in one day, and they all basically say they had a great time and learned alot, and would recommend and encourage people to get their permits, I don't think they feel imposed upon by the state requirement that they attend the required training.
Sorry to be off topic for so long. :blink:
Bottom line...you *believe* in mandatory training because you want to, not because you have any justification for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogre
"It sounds good." "It gives me peace of mind" (kind of a fantasy since it's not based on any real data).
We all agree that training is good. NO ONE can quantify 'how much' training is worthwhile...so again....NO DATA.
We've already established that accidents happen....even to cops...so again....the cases we've posted show some are trained, some arent, and some are professionals. Again....where's any data that proves *mandatory* training will prevent accidents?
And again, I find it insulting that so many people believe that the average person will just not bother getting (whatever basic requirement) training if they intent do carry a firearm. That's just ego on the parts of others, IMO.
To have the govt FORCE training that no one can prove makes a difference (since hey! most people already do get some!) just hands over more of our rights to create a bigger govt. And oops....I'm the Democrat and I disagree with that!
More than from people from states with no requirement? (you dont know, I'm sure. Which is the point)Quote:
Originally Posted by farronwolf
And if what you write is true...again...WUT? What is the point if it's so ineffective?
I don't know, I haven't gotten any messages from folks from states without training requirements trying to correct my valid information. I am sure it happens.
And who said it was ineffective. I can assure you if I gave the Texas test before class and after class, the results would be drastically different, but I am not allowed to do so. I did say they either had crappy instructors, didn't pay attention in class, or didn't read the rest of the statutes before trying to correct me.
Heck I have been through the CHL 16 booklet countless times, and I don't know 100% of it. There is a lot of material in it, and it is only about half of what we cover in class.
If so many feel training is indeed appropriate, of value, hunky-dory or even necessary, why is this even an issue with you and the naysayers? It defies logic and really makes your thread a non-issue to anyone approaching this in a logical or safety-minded fashion. Take a safety course, meet the background check requirements then get a permit and carry to your little heart's content. Hopefully those receiving permits with a training requirement will see the value of safety and training and make it a regular habit. It's really not too much to ask before allowing someone to carry a loaded weapon amongst the public. I know you and others will continue to disagree, but if you don't want a debate, don't post a confrontational challenge in a thread you admit you knew would erupt into controversy. BTW, the italicized part of your comment is quite arrogant, IMO. Point made, thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by suntzu;2588843
Now, as far as being arrogant. Please dear Dr. tell me where I or anyone ever has said that they do not need training? Just please show me where that was said. If you can not the it is you sir being arrogant by assuming what others think. If you read the replies to this and other threads almost to a person everyone agrees training is a great thing...just should not be mandatory. [I
I think it is a fantastic comparison. Mandatory hunting safety courses and hunting permits significantly reduce hunting accidents...seems logical to me. I'm sure Louisiana could provide you with those statistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by suntzu
I believe concealed carry courses would:
1. Provide a foundation for safe and responsible carry
2. Reduce firearm related accidents
3. Improve the image of firearm ownership and carry to reduce friction with the anti-gun crown (which apparently I'm now a part of)
4. Educate new shooters and carriers, along with experienced shooters and carriers, about new laws, regulations, and concerns of carry and self defense
5. Ensure that carriers are capable of proficiently hitting a target with reasonable accuracy and demonstrate what center mass shooting means
6. Ensure that carriers can maintain their firearm, clear malfunctions, and use appropriate safety gear (such as locks, safes, holsters, proper belts, etc)
Not everyone who wants to carry grew up shooting on pappy's farm as children. Not everyone was shown proper firearm safety or proper shooting technique. Not everyone knows which situations are legally defensible for self defense shootings. These are valid, public concerns and, like it or not, the government has a stake in them.
What training hopefully prevents is a kid waking up on his 21st birthday, going to his local gun store, and buying his first cool, tactical, zombie killing, custom, chrome 1911, carrying it down the road to Walmart, and taking shots at a shoplifter because he thinks he's a pseudo cop and he wants to play Rambo. It prevents idiots from firing "warning shots". It prevents and 80 year old woman from carrying a gun that she's never handled or shot in her purse and then doing a pray and spray when she gets spooked in the Bingo lot late one night.
When I got my driving permit I was required to take a written test. I was the required to drive with a licensed driver for 6 months. I was then required to take a driving safety class. I was then required to pass another written and practical driving test to demonstrate my skills. Was it hard? No? Did it make me learn the driving laws, demonstrate safe driving habits, and act responsibly? Yes. I had to do those things to prove to the public, and the government, that I could be trusted to operate a 4000 pound missile on crowded roads. The same should apply to public firearm carry.
38Special...did you compare the statistics of states with mandatory hunting training against those without mandatory training to see if there was a difference in accidents? We all know training is good. What we dont know is if it makes a difference in actual accidents and public safety...because there seems to be an assumption that if not FORCED, most people will not get trained. (I disagree with this premise)
As for all the tests you took for driving....aside from the important point that driving is a privilege not a right......were you FORCED to take outside training?
For more perspective, people USE their cars every day...cc'ers do not use their firearms everyday...they may never use them in 'real life.'
So again.....what is the justification for forcing training on people if there is no data indicating it makes a difference? (And please see bold above for a reminder)
So as this thread has evolved, I see one particular thought pop up in my mind....it seems there are alot of people who think that if gun owners are not forced to take training to carry a firearm, they do not already have experience/'training' or will not bother to get 'training'. I put training in quotes because no one has nor can define what consitutes 'enough' training. But people grow up with guns, grow up shooting, get into competitive shooting, self-defense training, etc, so there's a lot out there available.
Do I need to start a new thread? Suntzu?
Do people on this forum believe that *many* people buy guns for self-protection and get no training or education on how to handle that firearm? Do you believe that number is significant? (Sorry, I cant define that).
No one said your's is ineffective but how do you know that the training other people get without being mandated is less effective? You are just assuming they dont get ANY.Quote:
Originally Posted by farronwolf
And you are the one claiming that people WHO HAD TO TAKE COURSES are still unprepared. So again...to me, that seems ineffective. Or pointless. Or most certainly, no better than the people who go out and get their own training by choice.